I quite love this game, but the statistics reveal something that many people already intuitively knew - the game is significantly more punishing for larger player groups, which a shame because if anything it should be the opposite. It really needs to feel tight and enjoyable with larger player groups given that can help distinguish it from the card game. I'm curious what others' opinions are on this, but there are two rather obvious issues to me that I'm frankly surprised were not thought through better in the game rules (and I've made houserules around both.)

a.) the elite monster rule is gratuitous and unnecessary given the mythos scaling and the # of monsters that appear on the board with larger player sizes - you'll lose several turns in combat with them while the board spirals out of control. There was really not a need to even have this feature, but at the very least the scaling should be significantly less, such as health of 2 + 1/2 the # of investigators.

b.) more doom entering the board creates far more opportunities for doom spread triggers that the players never have a chance to intercept. There should have been a rule that (softly) scales the # of doom allowed in a neighborhood or space based on the # of investigators. As an example - add 1 the amount of doom that can be in a neighborhood space for 3 or 4 investigators, or 2 for 5 or 6 investigators.

6 hours ago, Einlanzer80 said:

I quite love this game, but the statistics reveal something that many people already intuitively knew - the game is significantly more punishing for larger player groups, which a shame because if anything it should be the opposite. It really needs to feel tight and enjoyable with larger player groups given that can help distinguish it from the card game. I'm curious what others' opinions are on this, but there are two rather obvious issues to me that I'm frankly surprised were not thought through better in the game rules (and I've made houserules around both.)

a.) the elite monster rule is gratuitous and unnecessary given the mythos scaling and the # of monsters that appear on the board with larger player sizes - you'll lose several turns in combat with them while the board spirals out of control. There was really not a need to even have this feature, but at the very least the scaling should be significantly less, such as health of 2 + 1/2 the # of investigators.

b.) more doom entering the board creates far more opportunities for doom spread triggers that the players never have a chance to intercept. There should have been a rule that (softly) scales the # of doom allowed in a neighborhood or space based on the # of investigators. As an example - add 1 the amount of doom that can be in a neighborhood space for 3 or 4 investigators, or 2 for 5 or 6 investigators.

The new expansion adds rules to scale down the difficulty a little, like replacing doom tokens with blanks in the bag to give a bit more breathing room.

The difficulty really depends on the scenario. Scenarios which require the players to defeat an elite monster to win favor a lesser number of players whereas scenarios which have an "instant lose" effect if doom builds up too much favor more players. Still, even with the "instant loss" scenarios, a lesser number of players can still win if they prioritize collecting clues and performing other actions to win over reducing doom, which should be done on an "as convenient" basis.

6 hours ago, jeremyj621 said:

The difficulty really depends on the scenario. Scenarios which require the players to defeat an elite monster to win favor a lesser number of players whereas scenarios which have an "instant lose" effect if doom builds up too much favor more players. Still, even with the "instant loss" scenarios, a lesser number of players can still win if they prioritize collecting clues and performing other actions to win over reducing doom, which should be done on an "as convenient" basis.

I don't think this is true. Both scenarios favor fewer investigators. The latter scenario does due to the speed at which doom piles up on the board between investigator rounds, leaving players with too little wiggle room trying to deal with it. Both problems are fundamentally tied to mythos cup and how broken it starts getting to draw 10-12 mythos tokens every round in a single phase. Even though players get clues faster in this scenario, faster clue accumulation does not benefit players as much as faster doom spreading benefits the GOO and this is part because clues are underpowered for general use. Instead of giving you a single die reroll, they should have done something a bit more impactful like granting your observation bonus to a test or giving you an additional 1 on a die roll.

Regardless, I think the big miss was not having a core rule to dilute the mythos cup a little with more players. I houseruled this a while back, so instead of using the story mode rule from UDW, I just add 1 blank to the cup for 4-5 player games (meaning there are 15 tokens in total), and 2 for 6-7 player games (meaning there are 16 tokens in total.) This helps make the mythos phase a little less punishing and tedious with larger player groups with an added bonus of supporting 7 player games.

I agree, we add 1 blank to mythos cup for 4 players.

Until I got the base game for Christmas, I played in groups of three or four. Based on playing all four scenarios solo over two days, playing solo is far "easier". I figured the game gets out of control around the 4th cycle of pulls. I played Daniela Reyes, which having that extra space to move played a big factor in the scenarios being "easier." When I tried with Calvin, I was beaten to a bloody, scared pulp (both health and sanity topped out at the same time). I also struggled with Minh Thi Phan, too.

I did one of two things - go beat the monsters, knowing only two would appear at some point in 7 pulls, or avoid monsters and head off to the starting spot with the most doom. If monsters came early, pull 1-3, I could beat them and know I had a good 5-9 pulls (or more) before I'd face monsters again. That made it easier to clear doom, get clues, or collect money. Moving one extra space gave me a half-turn advantage when needed that Calvin and Minh didn't provide. With 13 headlines, that meant at least six rounds before that became an issue in solo play. Again, nothing to worry about until later in the game. Solo showed me group games mean turns have to be optimized because six times through the tokens with four players means 12 turns for each player before headlines run out on turn 13 (tokens get put back into the pool on turn 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11). This depends on tokens not being added to or removed from the bag or monsters adding doom.

Group play ramps that up where six rounds of pulling happens that much faster. Granted, more is supposed to be done per turn as there are four people instead of one. Arkham Horror reminded me a little of TSR's Hunt for Red October board game. The Russian sub has X number of turns to get to a certain port. It could start on any ocean square at the top of the board. However, there was only one ocean square that met the requirements to get to that certain port in the required amount of turns. If everyone knew that, it was easy to track the sub. If the person playing Red October deviated from that spot or moved any other direction/path than the one that made that port in X turns, Red October lost. In AH, there are a set number of turns before the effects of the tokens overwhelm the investigator. That means only certain things can or should be done because once that turn arrives, game over. It feels like the game locks one into "You have to do this" to win. In a group, it is hard to get everyone to agree what "this" is, because the tokens are coming at a much faster pace. Any deviation from "this" what the game deemed necessary, and the game is lost. "This" varies by scenario or investigators played. Daniela had that half-turn extra move and good fighting ability. Minh avoid monsters, cleaned doomed, and gathered clues (until she got the .45 and Derringer - then she fought). Calvin was ghoul food.